Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

Peer reviewed journals are not part of scientific method.
The politics of the scientific community does not interest me at all. Only the science. And then, only the science that is productive to my goals.

 

Very cogent and succinct.

Peer review is only meant to make sure you haven't made a mistake. It's the process of hypothesis, data collection, analysis, and conclusion that is the science, not the publication in a journal.

Your methodology et al can be checked by the public just as easily by being published in a popular journal as in a so-called peer review journal. There *are* trained, knowledgeable scientists that read these kinds of papers as well that can critique them. I know, my son does it all the time!

 

Because evaporation and precipitation processes act quickly and because too much WV creates a condition that forces WV down while too little forces it up WV is a self regulating process and it's concentration is self limiting. Sure, there are short term (mesoscale and synoptic scale) variations in both it's concentration and the temperature, but over time (climate scaled) those variations wash out and they to stay at their equilibrium level determined by the initial temperature and not the initial WV concentration.

CO2 does not precipitate out and so it tends to accumulate. There is no self regulating process by which it's concentration can naturally decrease the way WV does...at least not over short time periods. Also, WV blocks incoming radiation especially when it nucleates and condenses to form clouds. CO2 does not block incoming radiation. CO2 does not have a self regulating process by which its concentration is self limiting. Remember, WV is an IR barrier from both the top (incoming) and bottom (outgoing). CO2 is transparent from the top and opaque from the bottom. So there are some pretty major differences between WV and CO2. To assume their feedbacks work the same is incorrect.

 

I have never seen a scientist shutting down critics because they expressed their views in the media. I have seen them obliterate them (intellectually speaking) for not basing their criticism on science (which requires peer-review). That is not acceptable regardless of whether it's through the media, in a conference, or in a conversation....

I'm criticizing people for not responding to me. Here, again, is what you refuse to respond to: Show one single peer-reviewed study that undermines the consensus position: that the earth is not warming, or that it's not due to human activity, or that it's not likely to cause changes in climate.

Or you can just go on trying to rebut Scientific peer-reviewed knowledge by using non-scientific non-peer-reviewed statements. But don't whine if you're criticized for it. Science has proven its worth. Especially after the last 4 Centuries (called "Modern Science"). Non-Science has yet to produce anything. Science is difficult, non-science is very easy. They are just not equal. Period...

Do you know what the word "peer" means?

In any case, peer-review applies to Scientific Research. Graphs are a great way to show data to the public, but then the relevance needs to be analyzed by scientists and published. That's where peer-review has any relevance.

BTW, I have no idea what you think you want to prove with that graphic. But the Scientific Consensus is that the Global Surface Temperature is increasing. That this increase is due to human activity, and that if this increase continues at the same rate it will cause changes in the Climate. As I said above: if you can produce peer-reviewed Scientific research that undermines any of these precepts... you're in business! Otherwise.... it's just political wishful-thinking.

 

Ian Palmer

Science bows to no authority , it is not based on a consensus, and is in a constant state of flux. No great advance in science has been made by consensus: advances have been made by individuals paddling upstream. If a scientific theory is not in accord with validated evidence, then the theory must be abandoned and reconstructed. It is skepticism that underpins science, not the comfort of consensus.

The theory of human-induced global warming is not science because the research is based on a pre-ordained conclusion, huge bodies of evidence are ignored, and the analytical procedures are treated as evidence. Furthermore , climate ‘ science’ is sustained by government research grants. Funds are not available to investigate theories that are not in accord with government ideology.

 

WV goes up if the temp goes up.
WV traps heat making the temp go up.
WV goes up as a reaction to the temp going up.

I understand WV and CO2 are different.

Everything I read says CO2 is not sufficient by itself, at today's concentrations, to cause the temperature increase we are seeing. Is that correct?

So something else has to be causing the temperature increase we are seeing.

If it isn't WV then what is it?

 

Oh... of course. Science is not based on a consensus. But there just happens to be one for AGW... what can I tell you...

There is quite a bit of scientific knowledge that is not based on a consensus as strong as the one that exists for AGW.

And that, ladies and gentlemen... boys and girls..; is the reason (or one of the reasons) why peer-review is required. If a research starts with a pre-ordaiined conclusion, it doesn't pass peer-review.

You have made my case for me.

Sidenote (but important): Ian Palmer is a golfist. You probably mean Ian Plimer. But, just so you know, it's against the forum rules to copy-paste something that somebody else wrote and present it as if it were your own. If Ian Plimer were here, I would be more than happy to debate this with him. There are many questions he has refused to answer about all the nonsense in his books. But he's not here. So I can't debate with him. I can only debate with you. Which means that you can present and try to defend his arguments, if you want. But you would first need to read and understand them. And I sincerely doubt that you are capable of doing that.

 

*YOU ARE*!

If you only trust peer-reviewed journals then keep you posts there, not here.

You *have* been responded to. You just don't like the responses. If you want responses you like then keep your responses in the peer-reviewed journals.

You *STILL* haven't given *any* reason as to why the CIMP data is diverging from the RSS data. And you say no one is responding to *YOU*?

Do *YOU*? I know that there aren't any "peers" publishing anything explaining why the climate models continue to diverge from the RSS data. I've heard *excuses* like the "the heat is hiding in the deep ocean" -- which of course assumes we will believe that "Scotty transported the heat there so the surface of the ocean wouldn't warm".

So why is no one analyzing why the climate models and the RSS data is diverging? I can't find anything but excuses!

Why aren't *YOU* analyzing it and giving a reason?

It is proof of what I have been saying in this thread for almost a month. The climate model outputs are diverging from the RSS and weather balloon data.

As I keep saying, the earth has been warming since the last ice age. The problem is that the measured rate of change today is *NOT* what the climate models are projecting, the models are wrong. When the divergence was first noticed the climate scientists said "wait five years, the divergence will disappear". Then it was ten years. Then it was twenty years. It will be twenty years next year! What will we be told then? Wait fifty years?

If the warming is *NOT* going to stop then making paupers out of ourselves to try and limit CO2 is a waste. We would be far better off moving people away from the coasts! Spend the money on something productive instead of trying to stave off the inevitable. The RSS data shows a slope of about 0.013degC per year. The climate models show about 0.033degC. More than double the slope, gaining on 3 times the slope. That's going to be a major difference in how fast the migration of people is going to have to occur.

How many climate scientists have you seen advocating moving all the millionaires away from Miami Beach or NYC?

 

Posts are not peer-reviewed Science. You didn't know that? You are not very smart, are you?

Nobody has responded... but by the last part of this paragraph, it looks like you find what I write too challenging for you. So you don't want to see it. Well... you will see it every time you encounter a moderately inform person..

And I would give that reason because.... why exactly? Only thing I'm interested in is Science.Epistemology.

"Peers" don't publish. They just review. And this is a much more relevant statement than you probably think.

Good for you for looking! Maybe you can get one of those denialists to get their arse off the chair and do some real scientific research. Hey... maybe you could do the research yourself!

Because I'm not a Scientist. My arguments are 100% epistemological. I used to play the scientist a long time ago. And somebody like you would go to a denialist page and cut and paste something, and then I would go do the research, read the papers, lookup all information, and present a devastating response. The denialist would just move on and copy-paste the next stupidity on their list.... and on and on... I don't do that anymore.

Only scientific peer-reviewed research is proof of anything in Science.

None. For two reasons: 1-because Scientists do Science, not policy. And 2 because most Scientists I know are smart individuals. And that definitely sounds like a pretty dumb thing to do. I guess scientists have this human weakness of not seeking to be seen like fools. A characteristic apparently not shared by denialists..

 

If all you believe are peer reviewed articles then you need to confine your comments on the subjects to those peer reviewed journals. It truly *is* that simple. When you come here and make posts about subjects then you need to expect to get posts back in the same vein.

Trying to deflect data and theory directed at you using "it's not peer reviewed" *is* an argumentative fallacy when what *you* post isn't peer reviewed either!

This is just one more use of the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal. And nothing you have provided is meaningful at all.

Science is meant to describe the world we live in. If you can't describe the world we live in then then what good are you and what you have to say?

No, peers do constructive criticism. Just reviewing the article would be meaningless.

*I* AM! I have collected five years worth of data and am close to having six years. And my data matches the RSS data and not the climate models.

So why are *YOU* here criticizing people that are actually doing science?

In other words you are a TROLL injecting yourself into a scientific discussion. Epistemology doesn't have to do with actual knowledge, only with defining what the human mind is capable of knowing.

And you can't even do the most simple epistemological task of defining the uncertainty of what we can know about the chaotic system we call Earth.

 

I thought you guys might be interested in this since it's been a subject of this thread. The RSS group just submitted this publication to the Journal of Climate for the August 2017 issue notifying the academic community of RSS v4.0. They also updated their webpage last night with updated graphics. See here. In a nutshell the RSS satellite data shows +0.18C/decade of warming and total precipitable water (a measure of WV) is following the global mean temperature in near perfect lockstep. They do acknowledge that global mean temperatures are tracking on the lower part of the range of the model forecast envelope even after the recent El Nino event.

 

Exactly! Because what I post is not science either. It's Epistemology.

You're the first person I have ever needed to clarify this (to everybody else it has been obvious), but here it is. This doesn't mean that peer-reviewed research is the only thing that exists. Opinions, beliefs, comments, charts, graphs, conferences, videos, data, concepts, ideas, politics, ... they all exist. And a forum like this one is for discussing all of those. But they are not Science.

However, AGW is Science. It's science because it's based on peer-reviewed research. Your denial of AGW is not Science, because it's not based on any peer-review research whatsoever.

That is the most accurate statement you have ever made. That is, in fact, the purpose of Science. But you can't just pull out something you like from a webpage and present it as Science, just because it "sounds" scientific-ish. Thatt would be pseudo-science. Only research that has undergone peer-review can be presented as such. It's very difficult to comply with all the requirements of the Scientific Method. But the only way we have of know if it did or if it did not meet those requirements is peer review. If you can tell me of some other method to separate Science from pseudo-science, I am more than willing to listen.

Uhm... "review" implies feedback.

Not sure that six years of data will be considered relevant in studies that rely on the analysis of decades of data. If you want it to be considered "science", make sure that whatever you come up with is properly peer-reviewed. Otherwise, it will be a waste of your time. Non-peer-reviewed studies are a dime a dozen.

On the other hand, it looks like you already have your conclusion before even starting. That will be perceived immediately by reviewers. I can tell you now, your chances of hiding it are extremely slim.

Because they''re not! Those who think they are "doing science" here are only deluding themselves. Doing science could imply discussing with other scientists in the same field. But not in a political forum. You do it in a science forum. If you come to a political forum to do this, it means that you are looking at the political aspects. Not the scientific ones.

Wrong!!! How can you pretend to "do science" when you don't even know what Scientific Epistemology is? Epistemology is the study of knowledge in general. Epistemology, in Psychology studies the psychological and physiological aspects of knowledge in human beings (which is what you described). But Epistemology also studies the methods by which knowledge is acquired. This part is a branch of philosophy. Scientific Epistemology studies specifically how it's acquired in the most rigorous way. And, since around the 17th century a "Method" was formulated to this effect, in the branch of philosophy called Epistemology. For the last 300+ years Epistemologists have identified what has worked in the "Scientific Method" and how to reduce the mistakes to a minimum. Still some work to do, but the method works pretty well today.

So that settles that. You are not "doing science" you are "doing pseudo-science". You have a lot of competition.

If you mean, how to learn how Earth works ("defining uncertainty" is an oxymoron), I sure can tell you how: apply the scientific method! I can also tell you how to make mistakes: by pulling up webpages, graphs and absurd arguments from right-wing blogs. That is pseudo-science.

And to start off with a pre-established conclusion, as you are doing. That is the sure path to pseudo-science.

 

How dense are you? As CO2 causes small increases in temperature that increase in temp causes more WV to go into the air which causes more warming

 

As WV causes small increases in temperature why doesn't WV go up?

Are you saying that WV is not a feedback mechanism? That WV doesn't block IR?

 

That crazy claim is contradicted by all the data. It's a completely fraudulent claim on your part.

The "travesty" he was talking about was a lack of instrumentation, not the fact that any data didn't agree with global warming theory, because it all did.

So, you just got busted for fraud _again_. Apparently, you want to relive getting humiliated over the denier Climategate fraud.

That's obviously more open fraud on your part, being how the unadjusted data shows _less_ warming.

So, in summary, all you have now is fraud. All you've ever had is fraud, and all you ever will have is fraud. At least you get points for being consistent.

 

We measure solar output. It's been decreasing as temperatures climb.

Your solar theory is contradicted by the observed data, therefore it is wrong.

 

No, that's totally wrong.

Earth had been cooling for the last 6000 years, until our CO2 emissions suddenly made it start warming quickly.

We know what the natural cycle was. Cooling. Yet we now see warming. Warming is not cooling, hence, that's not part of the natural cycle.

Your "It's a natural cycle!" theory is contradicted by the observed data, therefore it is wrong.

 

The last ice age was from about 100,000 years ago to about 10,000 years ago. As the last leg of the graph shows, we've been warming ever since the end of the last ice age.

Jeeshhhh! Do you *really* think we all don't have access to google?

 

It does...kind of.

All things being equal if you were to...

...increase WV only then WV would immediately decrease and there would be no change in T.

...increase T only then WV would increase which leads to an even higher T and higher WV unit that feedback exhausts itself and stops after only a few weeks resulting in no further changes in T or WV after the new equilibrium is achieved. In other words, T and WV stabilize. T stop increasing.

...increase CO2 only then both T and WV will continue to increase for a hundred years or more and if we allow CO2 to continue to accumulate then the feedback goes into runaway mode and does not stop with no equilibrium ever achieved. In other words, T, WV, and CO2 never stabilize. T does not stop increasing...at least not for a hundred years or more.

 

Science is the enemy.

 

Are you saying that WV stops trapping IR after a while? If it continues trapping IR every single day then why doesn't the heat that represents grow a little every day?

 

These graphs are quite similar to their last ones. I'm disappointed they no longer show a margin of error (i.e. confidence interval) for the RSS data.

I dd note this in their analysis: " As the Earth's troposphere warms, it is able to "hold" more water vapor without the vapor condensing into clouds "

Is *this* the clue? Does WV block IR or is it the clouds? I know it is the clouds that reflect the sun's energy. Can WV go up without blocking more IR from the earth? Does the CO2 cause more clouds instead of WV?

I also see that they are blaming the input data for the climate models being wrong and not the model physics. WHY IN PETE'S NAME DON'T THE MODELS USE THE RSS DATA THEN!

 

It RAINS

 

Yes...sort of. Remember, if there is more WV than the temperature can support then it precipitates out (rains). Also, keep in mind that it isn't just trapping radiation. It's also blocking radiation from above too.